Indian chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1882-1902, 1887-03-03

what we had reference to in say
ing that upon that record the court
rendered the decision. The ques.
ton is, was that record creditable
testimony, was IL sufficient within
itself for that august body to rem
der a decision upon9 II "a" will
only have patience to bear with us
little we will show him, or her,
or whoever it is writing, for il
sounds more like the wit of wo-
man than the wisdom of man that
that record was not competent
testimony. "a" says, "if Read
err will read up a little more he
would undoubtedly learn that the
supreme court at the time the re-
cord was made to which he refers,
was authorized to try the cases of
applicants for citizenship" This
one was tried and Manly declared
to be a non citizen. Manly was
not a citizen of this nation and no
amount of oral evidence is sufficient
to set aside a court record unless
it can be proven that the record is
bogus, gotten up by some unau-
ihorized) or made contrary to the
judgement of the court. "Reader"
has just read up far enough to un-
derstand and know that the su-
preme court should always render
a decision on the real merits of
any case. He has read up enough
to know that the authority which
delegated to the supreme court the
right or power to try cases Of ap-
plicants for citizenship did so ille-
gally. Hence the record is bogus,
why2 don't deny but what the re-
cord was made. In amendments
to Art. 3, Sec. !, the constitution
says: "The supreme court shall
consist of three judges, who shall
be elected by the national council
and whose duties, jurisdiction and
compensation, shall be defined by
law, in the manner prescribed by
the constitution. If the record
referred to was competent testimo-
ny why was Manly not expelled
as an intruder from the Indian
country? Because all the records.
and all the declarations Of non cit
izenship eminating either from the
supreme court, or the citizenship
commission in regard to the rights
of the freedmen, claiming citizen
ship are not worth an iota in the
estimation of the United States
government. The moment you
undertake to expell them, the
other government interposes his
strong arm and says the two gov
ernments made the treaty under
which this class of individuals
claim their rights, and the two
governments alone can properly
settle the matter. The national
council fifteen years ago had no
authority under the constitution
and laws Of the Cherokee nation to
confer upon the supreme court the
rights TO try the cases of claimants
for citizenship by treaty. If it
had the authority then, it has the
now to create a citizen
ship commission, composed ex-
clusively of Cherokee citizens, but
we see the recent act of council
providing for joint commission
TO settle the matter. He says the
supreme court record was the very
best evidence that Manly was not
a citizen. Let us see what the
law says, page SO, Sec. 16, laws OF
the Cherokee nation, "In the tri-
Ell Of all appealed cases, and of
questions of the law and evidence
connected Herewith, the court
shall be confined to the papers and
documents, constituting, each case
hat shall be transmitted by the
,lerk Of the circuit court in con-
iormity TO law" Had that learned
august body considered for a mo-
nent the evidence transmitted by
he clerk of the circuit court, it
would readily have seen that even
{ council could have legally con-
erred the privilege of trying these
claimants that the court was in
'rror years ago, by debarring or try
ng TO debar him from the rights of |
,itizenship in the Cherokee nation. |
Sec. 26, page Sc, further says:
when an appealed case is open
or consideration by the supreme
,ourt, the court shall first consider |
md decide: such questions, fany,
# evidence, as may have been ap.
'ealed from the circuit court"
Now Mr.. Editor, in conclusion /
will say that Reader" has just
cad enough TO know that in the